Windows

Debunking the Windows XP power wasting myth

A recent article published by Treehugger.com takes Microsoft to task for committing several sins against energy conservation with Windows XP. George Ou contends that the claims are off base and offers his own analysis of WinXP power management issues.

Over the weekend, Digg pumped the article "How Windows XP wasted $25 billion of energy" from the Treehugger.com Web site. Fellow blogger Adrian Kingsley-Hughes offered his take on it here. I'm going to get straight to the point: The article was not only unfair but wrong, and I will back that up with facts.

The article claims that Microsoft committed these three energy sins with Windows XP:

  • The default power-saving option is set to High Performance.
  • Applications can "veto" sleep (AKA suspend) mode.
  • There is a lack of central management capability.

First of all, most users demand that their computers be set to High Performance. The power savings aren't all that great or are totally nonexistent in desktop computers anyway, since you need hardware throttling support. Until recently, power throttling has been an exclusive domain of Notebook computers, but modern desktop computers based on Intel and AMD have added this feature with Intel SpeedStep and AMD Cool'n'Quiet. The problem is that it's only the difference between 180 watts versus 155 watts in idle, which really doesn't make that much difference.

So this is really a hardware issue and not an operating system issue. Treehugger was wrong to lay the blame for this on Microsoft because it lacks the technical understanding of how this actually works. Its example of "flooring a Honda at every green light" is simply way off the mark.

Second, having a veto mode for applications is a programmatic tool in Windows XP with legitimate purposes. Even though operating systems are smart enough to avoid sleep state based on CPU, network, or disk activity, there is a valid case to be made for a manual override option. Microsoft determined that too many developers were abusing the sleep veto function, so it decided to remove the function entirely in Vista (although it can be re-enabled manually via the registry). It wasn't Microsoft's fault that the feature was being abused by developers, but it made the right decision to remove that default feature from Vista knowing what it knows now.

Third, what operating system other than Vista has central power management capability built in? I heard a lot of anti-Microsoft sentiment reveling in the news that Microsoft was being blasted by Treehugger. But I would ask those people how their choice in operating systems performs in power management. Of course, the usual response is that you can always come up with a custom script to manage these things in UNIX variant operating systems. But you can do the same in Windows XP with command-line scripting and Group Policies. Vista simply goes a step further to include easy-to-use GUI Group Policies to globally manage Vista's power state natively. What other OS vendor does this? Could Microsoft have been the first to do this with XP? In hindsight, sure it could have. But is it fair to bash Microsoft for being the first OS vendor to implement the most extensive suite of power management features in the OS natively?

The fact of the matter is, Treehugger doesn't have a clue about power management technology, and that $25 billion waste figure attributed to Windows XP is pulled out of thin air. The key issues surrounding PC power management, which I cover later in this article, were totally missed--which means Treehugger missed the opportunity to educate people on the real facts and issues of PC energy conservation.

The facts on PC power management

I've tested and measured Windows XP and Vista power management features extensively with various hardware, and I can tell you it's not as easy as throwing a few switches here and there in the OS. Windows XP, for example, has a default registry key that prevents PCs from dropping down to S3 sleep mode when USB KB/Mouse devices are detected, because the motherboard might fail to wake up. S3 is a state in which a PC is using nearly zero power and using barely enough to keep the contents of RAM intact. Without S3 mode, a PC suspends to S1 mode. S1 sleep mode on my desktop computer still burns up 150 watts of power, which really isn't any better than regular idle mode.

When I first heard about this registry key, I was shocked and thought there was some kind of monumental mistake in Windows XP default settings. After I did some testing on three of my desktop machines, I determined that this is mostly a hardware limitation. Microsoft can't risk a default setting that renders even a small fraction of PCs unable to wake when a USB keyboard and mouse are plugged in, even if most hardware doesn't have this problem.

Furthermore, the registry setting for enabling S3 mode was worthless on all three of my desktop machines because the hardware didn't support S3 mode. When I spoke with a Microsoft engineer on this issue, he explained that most OEM PC makers did support this feature and they properly set the registry key to take advantage of it, although I haven't been able to figure out which PC makers and which models support S3 sleep. However, corporations that built their own Windows XP images will have to determine hardware compatibility and set this registry key manually. (You can download the registry file to do this here.) Given the fact that Windows XP was released in 2001, when hardware support was more questionable, I can understand the conservative setting in Windows XP to avoid wakeup problems.

Windows Vista, which will be released in 2007, will have S3 sleep mode enabled by default, although it didn't help me on the three desktop machines I tested. Vista also introduces a hybrid S3/S4 sleep mode, which offers the benefits of both S3 and S4 mode. S4 mode is usually known as hibernate mode, where the PC dumps its RAM contents onto the hard drive. Hybrid S3/S4 mode dumps the RAM to the hard drive for backup but maintains the memory in RAM so that the PC can resume instantly from S3 RAM state. Should the PC lose power during sleep mode for any reason, the PC will lose its ability to resume from S3 mode but it will still be able to resume from S4 disk Hibernate mode.

The last change in Windows Vista is that users no longer need to be an administrator with root privileges to change the power management settings, though the settings can always be overridden by Group Policy. Group Policy settings follow a logical hierarchical inheritance model that can be company wide or implemented only at the OU (organizational unit) level, although exceptions can be made at the individual or OU level.

With all this talk of suspend mode, a glaring fact is frequently missed: People often do not want their PCs to sleep because they can't get to the system remotely any time they want. Microsoft SMS or other enterprise management tools will permit companies to wake their PCs remotely, but this doesn't help most people. Windows Update and Media Center aren't a big issue because those applications can arm the real-time clock on a PC to wake the system at a certain time to get updates or record TV shows. But most people don't have an SMS server in their home or even their business, and they want to do more than timed wakeups from Windows Update and Media Center.

Users want to be able to get to their files, which may be spread out over multiple PCs, or they want to be able to remote in to their PC. There is currently no easy way to do that while the PC is in any suspend state, which means many consumers won't want to use suspend. The real solution is to build PCs that drop their CPU, GPU, and memory clock cycles along with voltages into an ultra-low power idle mode where the PC still functions but only at a fraction of the speed. I've been calling for this for almost two years.

The modern PC is more than fast enough to operate at 1/10th the speed while running tasks like BitTorrent (often an overnight or multiple-day affair), office productivity tools, and DVD or video playback. There's no reason why the PC industry couldn't build a PC that runs as fast as an overclocked monster using 300 watts of power when gaming but throttle back down to 10 or 20 watts in super-idle mode. I'm aware of a few potential motherboard solutions that may offer these features now, but I won't mention them until I test those features in the near future.

I've been calling for energy efficient PCs for a long time, and not just for environmental reasons--it has a direct impact on your wallet. The funny thing is that most people would scream bloody murder if you raised their Internet connection bill by $20/month, but they don't bat an eye at their $300/month electric bill. A modern desktop PC that's turned on 24x7 could easily cost you $20/month in electricity, and that's not including the extra load on your air conditioning bill during the summer.

122 comments
ohpleaseagain
ohpleaseagain

Pardon my "notice" of confusion, but by what algorithim did treehugger.com use to arrive at this $25 billion figure? Total number of "old" vs."new" computers? W98 vs. XP vs. Unix or Linux? Notebooks vs. Desktops? You get my point, right? Anyone can throw out a figure, where is the hard data to back it up? And blame Microsoft? Please! At least they have tried to design systems that have opened the door to more people being able to at least try and learn to operate computers, which has driven the market to produce more affordable and better/faster units. Not everyone knows or thinks like a programmer or engineer. Anybody want to go retro to the days of 4mb's of RAM and 540 mb HD's? Green letters and no GUI's? Talk about energy wasted, time wasted, productivity shot, etc. Don't even mention the money thrown away. The actual truth is that if more and more people will continue the switch over to low wattage compact fluorescent and LED lighting systems, better insulation and reflective thermal glass windows the total net energy savings will be much greater, while also lowering cooling system strains.And vacuum out your towers once a month, please! The gains realized need to be re-invested in newer alternative fuels, bios, and smart systems that can monitor and adjust themselves to changing load factors. Heck, if 50% of people would simply start doing their laundry at night and set their thermostat back 4 degrees the load on our nations' electrical grids would ease exponentially. If the treehuggers want to really make a difference, get some folks in Washington to buck the logging industry, start planting and harvesting industrial hemp, a commodity that has so many benefits and no negatives that I've found. It makes a fantastic biodegradable toilet paper(know how many trees we cut each year just for this?), writing paper, clothing, cellulose blends, and the oil from the seeds burns so clean there are no CO emissions and no unburned hydrocarbons released to the atmosphere. It's grass, plant it, let it grow, forget it! Put the farmers back to work,(you remember them,don't you? They feed all of us.) But guess what? The timber industry lobbyists throw so much money around to make the switch very resistant. People need to rise up and make a change happen. But an OS wasting energy,compared to so many other factors? Spare me,please!

bop
bop

Fine work George !. How many of you know exatcly the power consumption of your mobo ?, HDD ?, Graphics card ? or just the combine system ?. November 2 years ago we started change all office PC's in the house with a std. PC Intel mobo (D865PERL) and CPU (P4/3.3GHz) Nvidia something (I don't care I don't game only need resolution - 1600x1200/16bit and 2048x1536 if they give me a 24" or two 24's and 4096x1536 - I'm doing ECAD and analysis corrections on 3 Excel sheets at a time - give me a video-wall ;-)). Any way 8 md later part of them start being unstable and a few PSU's go down (at least it helped change the PSU)and now after 2years 20% of the PSU's and 5 of the mobo's has been exchanged. I took 10 of the PSU's and 2 mobo's. Only two PSU's were dead, the other 8 is running perfectly in other PC's and the two mobo's has been running stable for 6 md's now - one with a bigger PSU and one with a smaller graphics card and higher quality memory (lower power consumption). This litle story just to show how litle the IT-people care. The sales guy, selected the parts didn't care to check if the PSU delivered the needed power and the IT-admin who deployed the PC's didn't check the delivery for stability. He is one of the best IT-admins I've known to date - and I've seen my share. How many of you have ever checked to see if it was an overloaded 12V that made the PC crash when MS-defender kicked-in, puting the P4 Prescot into overdrive. Or checked if your PSU combined 3.3/5V power capacity was more than your complet system needed. Ever wondered why a simple memory upgrade ende in a dissaster - 3W pr. module eq. 2Amp for the combined upgrade - ?Amp over the stable level of your PSU. If you buy HP, Compaq, IBM, DELL, Pakhard-Bell or the like and you don't upgrade anything significantly, you rightfully don't care. That's how much most IT-guys care !. From the worthless young unexperienced supporter to the seasoned, lifetime awarded coorperate IT-manager. I know this posting will make you want to "flame" me, but befor you do - read this. http://www.acpi.info/DOWNLOADS/ACPIspec30a.pdf Less than 10% of you will really comprehend those 600+ pages. I have had the doubtfull pleassure to debate with some of those guys in Korea and Taiwan who design mobo's and add-ins - no more than 10% ...... The application software guys ? ...10%. Treehuggers Hank Green is probably a fair webdesigner. But for readers of this site it's obvious that he knows very litle about computers and notthing about the hardware. Treehugger is a lifstyle and fashion site and their authors knows very close to nothing in the field that we, the readers of this site, are proffesionals. If Hank really care about the environment and the waste of power he would, in the near future, educate his readers (as George mensioned) on how to conserve power on a PC with XP or Vista installed. What bothers me most are that Hank probably dosn't have either the skills or the will as a writer to educate his audience. Because it dosn't make the same headlines, and I belive thats what he's really after - environment is secondary :-| Whats also anoying me is that so many IT-guys don't know how to get this to work. I come to work every day calling the office PC to life by a tick-tick on the mouse, setup analysis on the "system", send my off. PC to hibernate. Home again I wakeup the beauty by tick-tick and wakeup the office PC at my workplace out throug my own firewall, in throug the workplace firewall. From the off.PC I logon to the analysis "system" (security - dobb. login and the "system" only accepts one mac adr. to remote login) check the system running, logoff, backout put the off. PC into hibernate. put the home PC into hibernate by pushing the "goodnight" button on the keyboard. It works every time I need it, it has never deceived me. Do I know what I'm talking about !? Designing data collecting systems that on intervals and/or on events collects from 3 to 20+ values/measurements/parameters, corrects, store, compare, make desitions wheither to alert or go sleep, running unconditionaly for 5+ years on a single li-ion cell. Yes - I do know what I'm talking about.

ttocsmij
ttocsmij

Back in the mid 90's, the Swedish IT department at my company determined that changing from CRT technology to LCD technology would save enough energy to pay for the changeover (even at the ungodly LCD prices then). Perhaps treehugger's efforts would be better served if they offered to use their trust funds to replace all those CRTs people still have for newer LCD displays. Sort of like putting your money where your mouth is, eh? Treehuggers: Just kidding ... no one wants to disturb your vacation plans in Antigua. :-)

R3D
R3D

I have three of my systems on full time, and only two of which I allow to sleep only. If I let them hibernate, they crash in a very bad way. If they suspend, I get errors that are usually recovereable with a reboot, but that kinda defeats the purpose. In the interest of power conservation, I have resorted to giving up my home network for peer networking so that I may now shutdown all but one of my system. It is the only one that I can at least suspend and turn off the HDD's. I don't know if it is software or hardware related, but a "working" method of conservation would be a great solution and if Vista gets us closer to that endeavor, then it should be welcomed rather than scorned. Good article George. I just hope tree huggers takes this with a grain of salt and learn to take more time investigating the root (no pun intended) of the problem, rather than attacking a company because they stand out as the biggest/easiest target on the market to take out their frustrations upon. Their current tactics do not exactly inspire a wealth of knowledge or wisdom, IMO... R3D

gallopingghost
gallopingghost

George brings up many key elements to consider, and notes that human behavior really drives how we use technology. His article helps educate us to be better stewards which is a much better alternative than Microsoft bashing or Regulatory solutions.

ang2006
ang2006

and informative article by George, well explained. I appreciate his comments about how it can personally save you some money on your power bill and I am all for that. But what treehuggers says is neither here nor there to me. $25 billion does sound a lot off the deep end.

Steven_Fuhrman
Steven_Fuhrman

I'm sure that the Treehuggers of the world will hate me, but as an IT person, I am one of those who wants to be able to connect to any machine at any time from anywhere. Therefore, I turn off power savings features for when machines are running on AC power on every machine I work on. Not only do I waste electricity in that manner, but I try to educate all of my notebook users to NOT use Hibernate mode and to rely on the shutdown and restart concepts when they move from location to location. My thoughts are that many notebook users get used to the idea of having a 'quick-on' feature and fail to ever reboot their machines. Then they complain when they cannot reach networked resrources, when their computer runs slowly or when things crash with no apparent cause. Since my mantra has always been "When in doubt, reboot" I want them to restart their machines anyway, so why not educate them to shut them off when they are carrying them around? Lastly, in this world of rush, rush, rush, who wants to wait the extra time for a computer to "wake up"? Placing a monitor in sleep mode is tolerable, especially if it is an LCD, but waiting for Windows to Resume itself is somewhat annoying when you are in a hurry. I was enlightened to read about how the computer handles USB keyboards and mice differently than its PS/2 bretheren. It makes for a fairly strong arguement why so many PC Manufacturers are still shipping PS/2 keyboards with their systems. Keep up the informative articles that still maintain the soul of a person rather than the rigidity of a corporation. :)

neil.matthews
neil.matthews

I think your view of what "most people" means is a little skewed: "most users demand that their computers be set to High Performance" and "People often do not want their PCs to sleep because they can't get to the system remotely any time they want" By far the largest chunk of PC ownership is the corporate sector and most of those are just general office PCs where important files are stored on the network and the workstations rarely if ever use their full potential. For home users, I'd argue that 'most' people merely use their machines for undemanding tasks and the odd bit of gaming. There are people who demand that their computers be set to High Performance and who need to get to the system remotely any time they want, but they're a small minority.

itguy07
itguy07

And is based on BSD. And it's more reliable than XP is on most hardware. I love it - set it to sleep the monitor after 10 mins, and the computer after an hour. Walk away and it goes to sleep. Move the mouse and it comes back up 99.99999% of the time. Better than my IBM Thinkpad that will sleep when closed but after 2 days the battery is dead and after about a week it will just spontaneously reboot. If you ask most XP laptop users, they shutdown their computers when they move them. I bet if you ask most Mac users they just put them to sleep. There is room for improvement in XP's power management.

JodyGilbert
JodyGilbert

Do you agree with George that the Treehugger article missed the boat or do you think there's some validity to its claims?

marketingtutor.
marketingtutor.

In my opinion it is an utter waste of time to site ACPI docs or make reference to S3 or S4 states when the server market is where a majority of the idle power from high-end CPU and Drives/Arrays is spent 24x7x365. Our test machines were duplicate HP DL-380G5 servers, 16GB RAM, 6 x 146GB 15k U320. We didn't really waste too much time making sure every control and variable was taken into account, but did try to simulate a real-world environment. At this point in time it is my specific impression that given the same hardware, Microsoft Windows 2000 Server does consume considerably more power than CentOS 4.4. While I would agree that hardware is *largely* responsible for the amount of power consumed, my own personal tests clearly illustrate that its not just the hardware, but what the OS and Software running on that hardware is doing in its idle moments. We run quite a large number of servers, and in our efforts to reduce power costs, we performed a series of various power consumption tests here in our data center using a digital ammeter at the power strip where each server or workstation plugged in. All test machines had duplicate hardware, and were isolated on the network and hit with the same load from Webserver Stress Tool 7 for the duration of the testing. Our results clearly indicated that Windows 2000 out of the box consumed about 17% more power than stock CentOS 4.4 under the same load. Windows 2000 with all service packs applied and patched to the hilt only dropped power consumption 2% to a position of 15% more power than a stock CentOS 4.4 server, again under the same load. We didn't test much further other than to temporarily disable virtual memory, indexing, and put the screen save to turn blank which brought Windows 2000 Server to 12% higher consumption than a CentOS 4.4 box. It seemed fairly obvious that the excess services, features running in the background, and GUI with Windows 2000 Server does make up a considerable portion of the excess power consumption. The really hard question to answer is if this extra power consumption by Windows, translates into a significant increase in performance. Global warming rubbish aside, I would like to know if spending 10-15% more on electricity on Windows server, in addition to Windows Licensing costs, translates into any *real* benefit when the bulk of our servers all run software that has a Linux version. Interestingly, running Windows in a virtual machine didn't have the same effect on power consumption. CentOS machines running W2k in a virtual machine didn't experience a notable rise in consumption at all. The only thing I can say in benefit of Windows is the ease of administration, but even that can sometimes be a chore when compared to having all the command line tools available in Unix/Linux. Anyhow, I thought I would post this info for the benefit of the masses. In my opinion hardware power consumption docs and theory don't mean a thing in comparison to real world metrics and examples.

georgeou
georgeou

In fact if I ran my IT department or was giving recomendations, I'd only buy 19" LCD displays as the new baseline standard. The price difference will pay for itself in energy savings over a few years because you won't need as much power to drive the CRTs and you'll spend less on air conditioning. 19" LCDs under deep discount can be had for $150 per monitor. There is very little price differential today. Now as for dumping existing CRTs, that's a bit tougher to cost justify the expense. At the very least people shouldn't be buying CRTs any more.

georgeou
georgeou

I'm trying to solve my home problems by building a consolidated media entertainment box that also serves as a file server and the IPCop/CopFilter box running inside a virtual machine. At least that cuts the number of always on machines to 1 machine that eats 80 watts of power.

georgeou
georgeou

If power savings means people can't remotely connect to their PC, download their movies and music, access their files remotely, then people don't want it. Unfortunately, people won't demand lower power PCs but we're hoping the new EPA energy star standards will force the hardware industry to build computers that can idle with far less power consumption. It's mostly not an engineering issue, it's just a matter of priorities. PCs unlike cars don't need to give up size/performance/safety. PCs could be designed to operate like a Ferrari when needed but idle back to a Geo metro.

georgeou
georgeou

"I appreciate his comments about how it can personally save you some money on your power bill and I am all for that" That's the kind of "green" that everyone can appreciate :). Most people just don't care for the ideology but they do care about saving money.

DNSB
DNSB

Using George's figure of ~$20/month per PC per month,and rounding that to ~$250 per PC each year, 100 million PCs over a year would consume $25 billion of electricity. I've seen figures (2005 numbers AFAIR) of 240 million PC in the US and from 600 to 850 million worldwide as the number of PCs in use so that $25 billion figure isn't that far out of line. Blaming Microsoft for this power use? Given my experience with laptop users whose first action is to change the power settings in AC mode to maximum consumption, Microsoft isn't the guilty party.

bdfew
bdfew

My USB mouse was problematic often enough that I have an extension cord so I can disconnect the mouse and reconnect to regain functionality.

jonathan h
jonathan h

What office worker in the corporate sector do you know of that is happy with the idea of their computer being slower than it could be? Back in the 486 days did you know anyone who had the "turbo" button who did not leave it activated? I would agree that "most users demand that their computers be set to High Performance". Who wants a vegamatic that only slices?

georgeou
georgeou

High performance setting or not, it doesn't make any difference since the vast majority operates at 100% speed and power usage no matter what. The problem is in the hardware, the hardware needs to be able to transparently throttle down when not needed independent of the software and OS.

georgeou
georgeou

What you described has existed on Windows for some time.

MikeBytes
MikeBytes

People we have a much bigger problem than PC power consumption. Every aspect of our life is being invaded, yes invaded, by the radical environmentalist.Once they find out that plants talk and "feel" pain they will not want us to eat them. This is called the "oppression by the minority".

gregzdnet
gregzdnet

I do political/lending fraud research and activism. according to tree hugger I guess I should get rid of my computers and start flying and driving all over the country to accomplish my work and get filling cabinets filled with paper. I'm using Linux right now to open infected E-mails and had to use XP as server while getting modem/network connections worked out. Vista comes out of the hybrid sleep mode and is ready to rum in a few seconds had problems with modem configs but ticked the dial on demand box been no problems. I'm a conservative that belives in a savings based economy environmentalism, and energy cost savings are very important to me. I set the power seetings for my 939 machines by ticking a box in Xp or Vista drops cpu cycles in half and temps by 5-20 degrees. Run a 733 PIII as server but PIII 500 works just as well. THis article is great and I strongly agree with dropping power levels to 5-20% as baseline as well as video card underclocking/power managment. Tree huggers are Marxist and the are attacking capitolism which Microsoft is sybol of. They should go protest the 3 Gorges dam in China as Communists which they would be shot or thrown in prison for. Microsoft XP helped me save trees and the environment the gui power features are easy to use and Vista hybrid mode wakes very quickly the issue is hardware based. Tree huggers should try doing something intelligent and productive like lobbying corporations and hardware manufacturerers to impliment hardware based power saving features as this article suggests and I strongly endorse.

DelbertPGH
DelbertPGH

When my Media Center XP device goes to sleep and I hit the keyboard, my CPU wakes up but the video card doesn't. Of course, when I power it on, once in a while the video card lies inert, too. Some swell technology. So it stays on 24x7. My old IBM Win-98 machine, when it goes to sleep, won't wake up at all. So it stays off unless somebody needs to use it. I'm screwed left and right. But on balance, it's better than having no computer at all, so I pay the bills and live with the trouble. I look forward to George's power-throttling CPU. But I suspect that when it gets to my actual desktop in my actual home, it's not gonna work.

mickey
mickey

While i do agree the power issue is a hardware issue and not an OS issue. A basic statement that Microsoft was 1st to provide centralized power management is very wrong. The UNIX / Linux OSes had centralized power managment before windows 95 was even alpha tested. (i was a 95 tester going back to 1987 when its 1st test release came out) Possibly the most important point though is that it is the responsibility of the user to control power use..... The PC is made for the user, but that should be where the responsibilities end. That said.... If they feel the need to critisize the power needed to run the computer.... i'd like to know what OS the treehuggers wrote their article on and the OS of the web server. Better yet, why are they using one if its an issue with them.......

twade_us
twade_us

ENERGY STAR's free EZ GPO tool allows a network administrator to centrally control power management settings using GPOs.

TiggerTwo..
TiggerTwo..

[post deleted by admin] Message was edited by: The Trivia Geek

l.simms
l.simms

1--He lost me when he said "the difference between 180 watts versus 155 watts in idle" doesn't matter. If we assume only 100 million PCs operating @ noon EST, that's 2,500 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S. alone, which represents a whole bunch of powerplants we wouldn't need. 2--I agree with the prescription for energy efficient PCs, but think the power savings here pales next to that available from peripherals. 62% of all users who leave their PCs on all night fail to shut down printers & monitors. The savings with LCDs would be significant...with CRTs, huge, & involve no compromise. A combination of hardware & O/S improvements could, of course, make all this automatic.

obelix2u
obelix2u

I have to agree with most of the points that are being raised here. I am personally a guy that would be considered semi-anti-MS and a little bit for the environment (don't know what that means). I work in the hardware industry though I do not design complex CPUs but given other designs I have done and knowing what is possible, it seems that hardware needs to do a better job before we can start blaming the software folks. If we hardware designers are not taking the effort to create modes that actually save power rather than nominally save it, the blame is on us. If we can improve the efficiencies such that we can run stuff better and longer on cellphones and other multimedia which do use some forms of CPUs, it should be possible to do the same in the desktop CPU land as well. Maybe it is time for AMD to really start saving power rather than just comparing themselves to Intel.

daOGrrr
daOGrrr

Treehugger was out to lunch in it's accusations. And this article sets some facts straight. But what is really missing is some perspective of a less fanatical sort. Sleep modes do muck up apps and works in progress, and wake-ups can be problematic due to hardware variations ACROSS OS's, no matter how you implement them. Programmers do abuse available mode veto's, but I know I would too, rather than have to debug wake-up processes for an intensive application. The power consumption of a desktop pc isn't that heavy, to start with (where he came up with $100 a month I don't know, but he must be using a Cray2 on his desk), OS makes NO difference in either effectiveness of sleep/hibernate or general power consumption, (crt monitors are the hogs, and their energy save modes work just dandy without help from the OS).

georgeou
georgeou

It's very hard to measure that especially when you're on two different operating systems. You'd need some way to generate the same disk I/O, CPU, and memory load on those systems. I find it hard to believe that you could show a 14% difference in power consumption at the wall. There would have to be a significant difference in load to register that kind of a delta. For all we know, the existence of Anti-virus could be the culprit. If you locked your Windows server down hard enough, no file sharing or ports open on the host based firewall with minimal services, that is completely doable.

bop
bop

Very interresting test. Was the test done on one of each or on a handfull of each OS install ?. If only one of each I would (with my knowledge in electronics) have swapted the two HD images and rerun the test. It's not unusual to have a factor of 2 in power consumption between two, identical, electronic components from different production lots. Upto 10% is common within a prod. lot. Efficiency of the PSU is a big factor here, specialy if your PSU has a passive PFC. Knowing that Intel CPU's easily jump 30-40% in power consumption from loaded to peak loaded, I can imagine the big difference that can make in the OS kernel choosing one or the other way to wast idle time.

gregzdnet
gregzdnet

I'm running a PIII server with integrated video and dial on demand. I'd like to run a mini-server perhaps with embeded chipset or OS on flash hardware or software firewall could be built in. Do you think there would be a market for this? For now though I'll probably run a Pentium M or perhaps a laptop.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

For the past several years, PC's ahve really been in the "Hummer" Phase. Everybody wants the biggest fastest, highest framerate pushing, Coolest glowing lights, overclockingest system on the block. PC's have been catering to to generation X-cess. I wonder Multi-core offers a good opportunity for power conservation. Can they be designed to "shut-down" cores during periods of low activity (Similar to the way Honda shuts down cylinders in the motor of their minivan)?

linear
linear

Ok, Here is my 10c worth. How can the hardware be able to transparently throttle down? In others words what will tell it to throttle down? Im sure if you send power to the machine it will startup. If you remove or limit power it will stop or slowdown respectively. If the software gets itself into a twist when coming back then it will not issue correct instructions to the CPU and so on. How can the hardware guys (except if they were contracted to build solely for Microsoft) cater for all?

comp
comp

This is silly. There are a very small number of environmentalists with these kinds of weird views. Most of us are concerned about real world problems that are easily understood - things like collapse of fisheries, running out of oil, etc. It IS reasonable to suggest that environmentalists have over-estimated how quickly these problems will arise - (e.g. running out of oil) - or whether human activities are causing problems (e.g. climate change. It is also easy to see that many of the issues that environmentalists raise reasonable - we can see smog! We know fisheries collapse, etc. Bill Hepler

Benevolence
Benevolence

Do some historical (political) reading, then read up on environmental sciences. Then you won't appear as an idiot. Promise.

pkrdk
pkrdk

Yeah, dream on in your glasshouse where the good goys are wearing the white hats and are replublicans. Those you don't agree with ar idiots and communists. Actually it is not capitolism but capitalism. A less ressource hungry OS than XP would help you save more trees.

Geoff
Geoff

Take your head out of the sand. Global warming is a major issue. Nothing to do with communism, Marxism or Capitalism. Energy conservation is a way to combat global warming. How many PC are running at this very moment running some ridiculous screen saver, chewing up 200W for no practical reason other than they know when they hit the mouse it will come back to life every time? People don't trust sleeping so just leave the screen saver running! This IS wasting power plants full of electricity. Sure, it is hardware not running with Windows properly - but MS could have done more to drag the hardware vendors in line. MS are not blameless.

Geoff
Geoff

If Windows (any version) could go to sleep/hibernate and come back 100% of the time people would do it rather than leave their PC's on! About 1 time in 10 Windows just does not come back, so we don't do it. Almost every mac user I know just shuts the lid and it goes to sleep and comes back without any issues! Sleeping does not work so people leave their PC's on which wastes energy. THIS is where Windows has wasted $25 billion.

Benevolence
Benevolence

"The PC is made for the user, but that should be where the responsibilities end." Do you really think all responsibility should be with the user? That is very likely to limit the possibilities of how much power the user can actually save. The responsibility lies with the user, hardware producers and software developers!!!

Tony K
Tony K

I've been a Linux power user since before there was a digit to the left of the dot in the version number and I don't remember it having power management features back then. That's probably because we were still using AT-style motherboards that didn't have power management features (they started appearing with ATX-style mobos and were added to take advantage of a new OS from MS). Since Linux was "officially" announced in 1992, I think you might just want to double-check the timeline you just made up.

georgeou
georgeou

Anyone can come up with a custom script to manage remote machines, but Vista has a pretty sophisticated policy engine with a simple to manage interface. Are you saying there was something similarly sophisticated years ago built in to UNIX/Linux?

inertman
inertman

if you're talking about use at noon, why are you complaining about the sleep comparison? that's what the 180 vs 155 is! if people are using their pcs in the middle of the day, sleep and power save don't mean a thing. you're just like the liars at treehugger. these are the same kind of people who tell us that buying a hybrid car will take care of the greenhouse effect, not realizing that a person talking about greenhouse gases emits more co2 than an suv does all year! just look at your emmisions test, mine says 262 parts co2 per BILLION! you speak and what comes out of your luings is almost 100% co2. same lie, same point, same ignorance. sorry george, but some of these people don't understand where to assign blame and then yell at you when you say 'look, wrongplace to put it'. good luck trying to help these people read and understand. ADDITIONAL EDIT good that some of you caught the fact that the atmosphere isn't total o2 and therfore the total output of the human lungs isn't co2(only 17% o2 in the 'air', 7th grade biology, who cares about scuba divers)! however, like everyone who has missed georges points in this thread, you miss my point about the treehuggers' lies. also, i did check my emmission report and it does give both co and co2, did you check yours? and another also, anyone who has been to 7th grade shop class, or who has the ability to read an encyclopedia or use the internet (seems like most people here), could find out that the primary exhaust from a fossil fuel burning internal combustion engine(correctly adjusted) is co, not co2, unlike the human lungs, where some of you guys are right that the nitrogen etc are the same, but the o2 is converted to co2. and those same people who have the ability to read/surf the web, could then also find out that in spite of the fact that co2 is tha largest 'greenhouse' gas by volume, the next 2 culprits (8% and 9% compared to co2 @ 81%) are much more harmfull by effect at 36 and 27 times the heat trapping nature of co2. once again, these points are way off what geoge is talking about, much like ~80% of the posts in this thread. so, the next couple of replies to this post, talk about not opening your mouth... ps. i did make an error in saying 'billion', it is million, but it IS on my emissions report and not a primary, 'lo bearly measurable, exhaust!

soundy
soundy

...trying to find another dime, as the saying goes. As you say, peripherals are ignored in all this, and CRT monitors are by far the biggest consumers of power. Laser printers aren't far behind. If Treehugger is going to go on a rampage, perhaps they should concentrate first on convincing everyone to switch to LCDs and inkjets.

georgeou
georgeou

Thanks for your comments. It the blog I linked to from 2 years ago, I mentioned that Motherboard manufacturers can take the lead by having a low power idle mode, not just a good suspend mode. * Drop the CPU to 10% of its clock speed * Drop the CPU voltage significantly * Drop memory clock and voltage * Drop hard drive RPM (Hard drive makers) There's no reason PCs can't operate in 20 watts or less in this super slow idle mode and dynamically throttle up if needed. I'm checking on some Motherboards that might be able to do at least some of this. I want something that will dynamically underclock/undervolt and overclock/overvolt based on the demands of the user.

georgeou
georgeou

It's about $100/month per 1000 watts. A modern desktop PC runs around 200 watts without the monitor so it's actually $20/month depending on where you live and what you pay in power. I have three PCs though where 2 of them idle around 180 watts and one idles around 100 watts. That's about $40/month in power that I'd have to spend that I'd rather not spend and waste. Sorry, my mistake. I've asked my editor to fix that. But I absolutely agree with you that Sleep mode is useless to users. As I pointed out on page 2, a super throttle mode that throttles down the CPU, GPU, and Memory clock and voltage is what's needed. Thanks.

marketingtutor.
marketingtutor.

Well, with our systems, they are are mostly closed systems that only take in financial transaction data. So we don't run AV software on any of them. And for any of them that are mail servers, we use a separate SMTP gateway to strain out spam and viruses, and to take the scanning load off of the mail servers. So none of our machines use anything but the most crucial services. But I certainly do think the GUI is a good source of possible waste, but then again, the draw routines in Windows are not running all that hot when you have the screen saver set to blank, and power setting set to turn off the monitor after 5 minutes of inactivity. I thought 14% seemed like a lot but when I think of it, it the grand scheme of things its only a lot as the scale increases. I mean... $ 1.00 -> $ 1.14 $ 10.00 -> $ 11.40 $ 100.00 -> $ 114.00 $1000.00 -> $1140.00 That is really not all that much. Yeah it's something to be shaved off if possible, but really it is not a budget breaker.

georgeou
georgeou

"Rather, I should have put it like this: "You just enough of a appearance of favoring MS, just enough, to rile those that are biased (great and small) towards open source."" Well, I'm more knowable on Microsoft than Linux I admit and here on TR we don't have enough Linux content and we're working hard to correct that. We're going to continue increasing content on Open Source solutions as much as possible. "I stand by a Denali that gets 10 miles per gallon on the highway. If I have money to burn, I might as well send the smoke out my tailpipe" Well, I can't stand by that since I don't have the money to burn. But you're a lot better than the hypocrite Google boys who argued over what kind of king size bed should go in to their wide-body 767 which uses more power on one trip than your SUV in its life time. New cars really don't have smoke or pollution anyways. That Denali of yours pollutes a lot less than some hippie in a old car.

marketingtutor.
marketingtutor.

You're right, sellout is a bit strong. It was the only word I could come up with at the time. I am sorry that I termed it so strongly. Rather, I should have put it like this: "You just enough of a appearance of favoring MS, just enough, to rile those that are biased (great and small) towards open source." I would say I lean more towards the open source side of things. I think Windows is a good product in general, has near perfect compatibility in most situations. It isn't the market leader just because Gates pushed MS products with predatory tactics. They are complete, and have support for most any device you'll find. Most of the programming I do is for the Windows platform, so my bread and butter is certainly in Windows, but for the projects that I can cross-compile with Qt, Cross-Kylix, Real Basic, etc, you can bet I will recommend the customer use the Linux version long before I will recommend the Windows version. Of course that depends on whether or not they have already invested heavily in MS licensure. As far as the test is concerned, controlled or not, it represents (for the most part) a typical server deployment for our accounting system and in that, it says plenty that is true whether anyone wants to accept it or not. I wasn't presenting it as the end conclusion for Windows in General. Heck, its Windows 2000 for crying out load. There have been a lot of changes in the OS through XP and 2003, and even more in Vista/Longhorn, but we don't use any of those in any real capacity, so the test was with Windows 2000. Likewise, I imagine that in the desktop sector where power management has a more application, that the differences in power consumption will greatly favor Windows. Beyond saving my company electricity dollars, I have no care if Windows uses more power. And in my opinion, Windows using even 20% more power doesn't validate the tree hugging imbecile's statements. Most tree huggers are liberal types that are just wanting to make a stir for the sake of the attention. Tree Hugger is just doing this to get traffic through his site.

georgeou
georgeou

"PSBTW - George, while I do feel you are a smidgen of an MS sellout (as is Tech-Republic and the whole com.com crowd), I agree much more than I disagree with most of what you say." "Sellout" is a bit of a strong word, but your criticism is noted. I have plenty of pieces criticizing Microsoft and plenty of pieces praising Linux. My Enterprise expertise is in Cisco, Networking gear in general, Wireless, Security, Authentication, PKI, and Microsoft technologies so that is what I primarily write about. No one has time to learn everything. But just because I don't write about Linux solutions doesn't mean we (TechRepublic) aren't interested in Linux. I and my colleagues work behind the scenes to help get Linux and UNIX content on TR.

georgeou
georgeou

A locked down server doesn't need AD. I said that in my last post. A locked down server has zero file shares open. Has minimal services installed. Has all ports blocked by the host-based firewall except for the service it's actually suppose to be running. That means the only vector to attack that machine is through that service which needs to be patched with the latest updates. This also happens to be the way you're suppose to run your UNIX/Linux servers too.

Geoff
Geoff

In the real world Windows needs Anti-virus, UNIX does. If that 'feature' makes windows consume 14% more power, then the tree huggers were probably conservative in their cost estimates. The other thing that is probably consuming all the CPU/power is the windowing system. The gui is part of the Windows OS. A UNIX server will not load any graphical stuff. UNIX was designed when CPU and memory were expensive. Using extra CPU and memory consumes power. UNIX was designed from day one to be multi-user and multi-tasking, so is much more efficient with things like memory management and task scheduling, hence less CPU, memory and power to do those functions. Sure 14% sounds like it is at the upper end of the scale, but I would have thought it would be a no brainer that Windows consumed more power than the same system running UNIX.

marketingtutor.
marketingtutor.

I wouldn't have imagined such a difference in power usage either, but in my opinion the facts stand as they are. Questioning them as if to mitigate their implications (especially in light of the topic) doesn't change the results we encountered. If someone else has more time to pour into a more detailed and controlled test, I really would love to see how their results turn out. I don't doubt that much could be done to bring those numbers down, we just haven't put the time into yet. PSBTW - George, while I do feel you are a smidgen of an MS sellout (as is Tech-Republic and the whole com.com crowd), I agree much more than I disagree with most of what you say.

marketingtutor.
marketingtutor.

Good idea to image to the other drives. The DL380 line has hot swap redundant power supplies. We did switch the PSUs between the two units just to be sure one wasn't leaking. It apparently only made a nominal

georgeou
georgeou

Fellow blogger Justin James is coming out with a new blog on a mini server he ordered all the way from Taiwan. He'll be posting pictures and blogging it. For now, power saving computers cost a lot of money. What we need are PCs that undervolt and underclock as well as overvolt and overclock. Asus P5B does some of this but it's a very sloppy implementation and its usability is very questionable.

georgeou
georgeou

Intel is doing speed step AMD is doing Cool'N'Quiet They both throttle up/down CPU speed and voltage many times a second transparently. It just isn't enough as far as I'm concerned.

inertman
inertman

stop celebrating xmas by cutting down trees. there was a news story this week that stated it was better to cut down a tree for xmas than buy a plastic one. holy sh*t! better yet, i don't even celbrate, but i still cut out a tree from old wrapping paper and tape it to the wall for my dad so he will have something to put gifts 'under'.

Benevolence
Benevolence

I think soon we will need to start a new discussion around this issue, as we have sort of run out of room. This is a wonderful intellectual debate with many unique points of view. I even slightly disagree with George, which is very rare for me. Shall we migrate this conversation soon? EDIT - a new discussion thread has been opened here: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=206234

Benevolence
Benevolence

I understand the desire to stick to old technology, but for one coal is pathetic. Secondly, a shoe box of nuclear waste is a pretty horrible thing... and also, when the US ratifies Kyoto maybe the 3rd world countries will follow. The US is still one of the highest polluters in the world! No matter how you look at it!

georgeou
georgeou

First of all, your average family if they only used nuclear power would only produce a shoebox full of nuclear waste in their entire life time and most nuclear waste material could be recycled and reused for more energy. The recycling process also turns the waste in to something that's far less dangerous. Nuclear material came from the earth to begin with, calling it "waste" is inaccurate because it's simply a concentration of natural materials on earth. There is an anti-nuclear lobby that would do anything to ensure it's too expensive to recycle or safely store nuclear waste through endless lawsuits. Lastly, coal which provides the majority of electricity for the world emits thousands of tons Uranium and Thorium in to the atmosphere annually and we're not even counting the CO2 emissions. The amount of nuclear material and other toxins emitted from coal makes nuclear energy look pure as snow. Furthermore, nuclear waste from coal isn't contained, it's simply emitted. The relatively small amount of nuclear waste produced from nuclear reactors is fully contained. As for solar concentrators, get the costs down and they could provide a lot of power for homes and businesses. The problem is that they're not cheap and you have to have a sun tracking device that only works during days with direct sun light. If the efficiency can be 25% and the surface area is 16 meters squared, it would be possible to produce 4000 watts for 8 hours during a clear bright summer day. Such a device could supplement our energy needs but it would be very expensive. We also can't count Government subsidies because that merely redistributes the costs of solar energy. It would need to be a genuinely cost effective device in the $5000 range. Currently it's more than $10,000 for 1000 watt solar energy device which is way too expensive and too little energy for most people.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

How about if we put solar collectors on every roof of every building? A' La distributed computing? The costs for collectors should go down, due to commoditization.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

http://www.etsu.edu/writing/3120f99/zctb3/nuclear2.htm That is a bit dated, but I haven't seen much to indicate that the problem is solved. I did tour a facility at the INEL (Not call that any more), where they were working on a calcination process, to convert the nuclear waste into a hard pellet form,making it safer to store, but the stuff was still radioactive, and still had to be stored somewhere. I'm not to keen on having a radioactive landfill in my backyard. (or anywhere). As I said, I realize this doc is somewhat dated, so perhaps things are better now. But then again, are they better enough?

georgeou
georgeou

As the founder of Greenpeace showed in his article with the Washington Post I linked to, it's been providing us clean, safe, and reliable energy for decades in the western world.

Benevolence
Benevolence

Well actually, on the whole abundance thang, solar is truly the most renewable and abundant resource... problem is, we have not found a really efficient way of harvesting it. It would be nice to see a whole lot of investment into figuring out how to utilize this resource in the most efficient way we can. But until that happens, we need to find other temporary fixes, like nuclear perhaps, which is getting safer. The generation 4 reactors are shaping up quite nicely, but we are going to have to wait at least 20 years for them to become a reality.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

I'd like to see some more hard numbers on Nuclear waste creation, reduction and lifespan before I sign on to that one. Perhaps I have been indoctrinated by the wacko's, but I am fairly concerned about having a nuclear landfill...anywhere...

georgeou
georgeou

There are a LOT of pro-Nuclear converts in the environmental movement and more and more of them are coming out of the 60s knee-jerk reaction against nuclear power. It is the only abundant source that could replace coal-fire plants that spew thousands of tons of Uranium and Thorium per year. Most Nuclear waste can be recycled and reprocessed in to far less dangerous Material.

Benevolence
Benevolence

Holy moly! I had no idea James Lovelock is supporting 'going nuclear'. I am still undecided though, I think a combination of newer technologies (nuclear included) is the best way. I still think that processing of waste could become a problem when 2nd and 3rd world countries start taking other countries waste to make money, and dispose of the waste poorly. Bu the way, I wasn't entirely serious about the whole lying thing... sort of playing devils advocate. I think solar towers seem to have a lot of potential too. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2688 ...but there are problems that need solving with this concept. Smaller units seem to be more logical in many ways. Tidal flow systems are interesting also, though are only suitable in certain areas of the world.

Benevolence
Benevolence

Remember, the US has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Actually, the US is responsible for quite a disturbing amount of pollution, especially if you look at it from a per capita basis. If those on the right are using lies all the time to get action (Iraq war for example) in the direction they want, maybe it is necessary for us in the middle, or left, to do the same. I'm not really decided on that point though, I am just throwing thoughts out there.

georgeou
georgeou

That's what the eco fanatics have been saying, that it's ok to scare the public with extreme worst case scenarios even if it means twisting the truth. Now you need to think about that and ask yourself if lying is ever justified. What happens when people find out you've been lying or grossly exaggerating to them? Don't you think there will be a backlash? And I don't agree we (first world countries) are "raping" the planet. There was a time in our past where we did do that but we've put a lid on ourselves long ago. It's the third world countries that recklessly use drift net fishing (whom Al Gore would have exempted) that are the problem. It?s countries like China who have massive numbers of underground coalmine fires that are just left there burning and spewing a significant share of pollution who would have been exempt from Kyoto that are the problem. Also, there have been more and more evidence coming out to debunk anthropogenic global warming. There?s plenty to suggest that it was much warmer in the 11th to 14th centuries during the medieval warming period and the world was tossed in to hell with the little ice age. There is even recent evidence that the ice caps are growing and that we?ve been cooling since 1998. Plenty more facts and links presented here. http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711

Benevolence
Benevolence

The whole Global Warming 'scare campaign' brings the masses (who do not understand sciences) into line with us informed persons who recognize that we need to stop 'raping' our planet.

Benevolence
Benevolence

yeah, I thought you most likely had an informed view. I was just making sure. I come from a scientific background and believe in looking after our planets interests, as they are our interests too. Good to see the wacko term is reserved for the fundamentalists... 'No fundamentalists are good fundamentalists'

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

Thanks for injecting a little bit of it, George. What I can't figure out, if global warmng is real, how come I am freezing my @#$ off in early December? It is colder this year than it has been for the past several. ;) Seriously, there are a significant number of variables that peple overlook (ignore? cover-up?) in the debate for and/or against global warming (sunspots, solar flares, solar expansion, and probably a few laws of physics/chemistry/math/nature we have yet to understand). People should conserve power, water, garbage,etc. because it is the decent thing to do, not because the world is going to end. And the MS rant? seriously pointless. I am curious, has anyone taken a meter to an at rest, default install of Windows, and a default install of Linux? I have a sneaking suspicion power consumption is fairly similar on the same HW. Like George said, The attention should be focused on the HW makers, where a real difference can be made. Or maybe he should focus on Christmas lights; get everybody to switch from incandescant to LED bulbs (600-100W vs 1-2 W per string). MS induced power consumption is a drop in the bucket. Get over the OS'ism and focus on something that will erally make a difference.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

Peple get pissed at them for abusing their power to manipulate HW/SW vendors, and people get pissed because they don't.

ang2006
ang2006

Energy conservation is important if for no other reason than our children will need energy long after we are gone. However, I do not as a rule pay much attention to doomsday prophets. Reminds me of a quote: "It is good to remember in times like these that there have always been times like these." cool and warm, cool and warm, etc etc. Seems always there is someone willing to cry in the streets that the end is near........all they need is a cause.

georgeou
georgeou

I am for energy conservation and I've recommended actions for implementing it. The word "wacko" is reserved for those who would state unequivocally that there is no debate. It's reserved for those who would implement policies like banning Chlorination of water supplies that end up killing thousands of people (in the 90s in Peru) and the banning of DDT which killed tens of millions of people and continue to do so to this day. And on the issue of the "consensus", here's how the media artificially creates one. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=77195 "In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me. "I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of.""

Benevolence
Benevolence

'Almost everything you say is always right' George. But I think you should be wary of painting all green-interested peoples as 'wackos' (that is how your opening statements here came across). We need to continue debate on all these issues, but one thing is sure - the more clean our planet is THE HEALTHIER WE ARE! As we are part of one big system. We may not be contributing to Global Warming, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce the levels of polution we produce.

Benevolence
Benevolence

There have been no actual communist states yet, just crappy pseudo-socialist DICTATORSHIPS claiming to their citizens that the state is communist.

georgeou
georgeou

We've been cooling since 1998 and we'll continue to do so because they're predicting fewer sun spots. In fact, the green wackos switch from talking about a new ice age in the 60s to a global melt down and now they?re back to talking about a new ice age. Notice how they switched to "catastrophic weather change" so that they can hedge their bets. If the temp goes up or down, they'll say see I told you so. Actually there is global warming and it's been happening on Mars too. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html I guess that was caused by Man too. We've had multiple warmings and even a mini ice age a few hundred years ago that killed off the Vikings on Greenland and shrunk a significant percentage of human population. All warmings periods have been greeted as a gift from the heavens because it meant there was that much more food and more farm land. The newest form of the thought police tells us that ?the debate is over? on anthropogenic (man-made global) warming when in reality the debate is alive and well. The media tries to tell us that there is a scientific consensus when nothing could be further from the truth. The media tells us that a few thousand scientists support the Kyoto treaty but don?t tell us that many more scientists signed against it (http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/). The media tells us that scientists universally praises Al Gore?s ?inconvenient truth? when nothing could be further from the truth. http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909 Let?s all try to think more independently and avoid the mindless ?consensus? on global warming. There is no consensus. The debate isn?t ?dead? as the media "elite" would have you believe.

gregzdnet
gregzdnet

If you read my post through I restated several times energy saving is a very important issue global warming is too. Tree hugger fabricated non-sense to bash Microsoft, its a hardware issue driven by market considerations. Tree hugger claimed it was Microsofts fault for these reasons: 1)High performance mode was needed to run modern computers, not true I run all my Windows 939 machines on minimal I just tick the box and shut off screensaver. 2) sleep mode is flawed because AV programs interfered with them, so is Microsoft supposed to send someone from the supranos to break the kneecaps of third party developers who write programs that don't wake? 3) SYS admins didn't want to hassel with power settings system wide, well I don't want MS to break my kneecaps if I forget to set power options to minimal and install cool'n quiet. I do think there was a Marxist/socialist slant to the article, blame Microsoft instead of the purchasers or hardware manufacturers. The whole point of implimenting a Marxist or Socialist system is to give control of the government,monetary sytem and resources to a hanfull of billionaires, as evidenced by the Wall street funded violent Socialist/Communist takeover of Russia in 1917. Socialist, Communist and dictatorial governments set up all over South america and Asia to bulldoze the rainforests and burn them to create unpayable debts and perpetual poverty. How can the issues of energy use, global warming and environmental damage in general be independent of government? If people like us don't address this issue who will? I am actively working hard on this issue but can't discuss the details for legal reasons.

comp
comp

Ditto Geoff's statements. Although MS is not the only cause of this problem, they are a part of the problem. Power consumption by PCs is a global problem.

inertman
inertman

first, not all macs have a lid, but thy do have other issues. second in a comparable world, that is laptops to laptops, i've never seen one that didn't work 100% of the time. third, the only time i have problems w/ sleep or hibernate, isupon adding a beta or 3rd party software, specifically, when i add adobe photo deluxe, it ceases to work at all, or when i beta tested media player 11 and ie7 simultaniously. otherwise, never had a problem w/ sleep in systems that supported it or hibernate in any system. sleep works so much faster, about 4 seconds shutdown and 7 seconds start up, that i use it all the time.

bop
bop

Tony I think we two has the same angle to the problems, at least both the power problem and the Mac. I'm tempted to agree with you on the percentage of good supporters but I stick with my own number - 85% incompetent. But of those only 15% "known good supporters" 90% comes with a hardware past.

bop
bop

2 office PC's at work, all 4 PC's at home (2 sons, a wife and my own) and 2 laptops. All has advanced power profiles and it started work with XP pro SP2, befor that it was unstable or not working at all. The laptops on batt. turns of screen after 10 min. go sleep after 20 min and hibernate after 30 min - yes they wakeup save RAM to HD and pwr down - shut the lid and it goes directly hibernate if on battery. On grid power the laptops stays on longer and then goes to sleep - if you pull the grid power it wakes up saves RAM and power down - effectivly hibernate. Don't tell me it dosn't work. All stationaries goes to sleep after 1 hour and goes hibernate after 6 hours. They hibernate any time I hit the "godnight key" on the KB and wakeup promptly at dob-click of the mouse. It's two diff. laptops and 6 different Mobos, even 8 diff. CPU's not two are equal. Only thing they all have in common is the level of updates from MS - they are all XP-pro SP2 up to the minute updated. All I had to do was to clear out all the setup collitions between CMOS settings and XP settings - there you will find 90% of you promblems with XP and power control.

georgeou
georgeou

I haven't had them for years and no computer I build has suspend issues. I use to create the imaging standard for corporate desktops and I'd make sure my machines will suspend properly. It's some configuration or corrupt software issue that you may be having that's preventing proper suspend.

georgeou
georgeou

If you have a clean install and clean drivers, hardware should all wake up. I know a lot of people complain about non-waking XP machines, but I've never had them because of my software configuration. Usually some piece of software corrupts the system to make it fail to suspend. However, there is a bigger problem with S3 mode and hardware vendors are not putting out S3 capable hardware.

DNSB
DNSB

One improvement in newer desktops is that allowing power management to spin down the hard drives no longer causes problems when spinning them back up. A bit humourous since laptops have used hard drive power management for over a decade without serious issues.

DelbertPGH
DelbertPGH

Our laptops never have a problem waking up. Desktops are what I was complaining about.

stan
stan

I've never had a problem with sleep or hibernate on any laptop I've owned. This includes laptops running XP Pro and before that, NT. This includes a variety of different pentium type processors. I've never tried it with XP home or other versions, since I've never wanted to put other versions on any of my laptops, and I nearly always click "Shutdown" and then choose sleep or hibernate, depending on what I'm doing. Of course, both my hardware and software are well maintained....

Tony K
Tony K

Every laptop I've ever had; IBM, Dell, Toshiba, HP. Doesn't matter the brand. Considering a good 90-95% of "support" guys are incompetent, I wouldn't trust anything they have to say on the subject. As for Macs, well, I owned a Powerbook for a year and while most times the hibernation/sleep worked reasonably well, I wouldn't say it was perfect by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it was one of the reasons I switched back to Windows, it just worked better there.

comp
comp

It is NOT true that sleep mode works correctly in all cases - it does not! In some cases where we have tracked down the cause, it has related to USB peripherals. In these cases, we have not been able to determine whether or not the problem is an O/S problem, PC problem, or peripheral problem - but Microsoft has been very involved in setting up specifications for USB devices, (and in my view has done badly at this). It is true, that much of the responsibility for computer power consumption rests with users, h/w mfg not with MS - However having an O/S that wants to be in contact with a central point to get updates, is one of the underlying causes for PCs being left on all the time in a business environment & some responsibility for this lies with MS. Bill Hepler

Geoff
Geoff

I worked with a group of support guys with dozens of types of laptops - and almost everyone disabled the sleep/hibernate function when shutting the lid. Sure sleep works most of the time, but it is just not reliable enough. I have a bog standard HP and Dell - and if they are not reliable then nothing will be! Every mac user I know just shuts the lid and it works - oh, and the guy running Windows on the mac hardware has problems with sleeping, so it can't be just about the hardware!

Tony K
Tony K

There's obviously something wrong with your machine, because I do this every day with my laptop. I close the lid, take it home, open the lid and use it. I've never had a problem with it coming back to life...EVER.

sfloyd
sfloyd

Mac is dealing with Their hardware, Microsoft is dealing with Many differnet hardware vendors...Hardware is the Key and a single standard would be nice.

regmigrant
regmigrant

If MS controlled all the hardware the way apple controls MAC it would be a lot easier for them to introduce a fully operational sleep function. But they don't and thats one of the reasons wintel costs less than apple. (or should that be apptel?). Surely the article made that point very clear when discussing S3 and the problems with USB mice?

georgeou
georgeou

Missed that bit of hypocrisy in his comment.

Benevolence
Benevolence

George, did you notice that he says all responsibility should be on the users shoulders? I think HE really missed the point here.

Namorado_TX
Namorado_TX

    The calculations of human/fossil-fuel- motor CO2 emissions proportions has some speculative academic interest to me (and I agree with others that this "splinter" to the "thread" is of minor relevance or importance), but it seemed to me some of DNSB's suppositions were poor starting points.  For one, I doubt most humans breathe 30 times a minute, unless they're exercising.  I'd say half of that is closer to average.  If the given motor RPM and cylinder volume are accepted, again it seems he multiplied wrong, giving an error that is a multiple of his figures.  If I understand this and calculate correctly, his second paragraph would read as follows:     "As for the human-versus-car CO2 output, lung output averages about .5 liters per breath.  Let's say your car runs at an average 2400 RPM and has a 2-liter engine with 4 cylinders (.5 liters per cylinder) while you breathe at an average rate of 15 breaths per minute.  So in a 4-stroke engine, you'd be firing 9,600 'breath'-volumes per minute (every second, cycle 4 cylinders x 2400 = 9600 cylinder-volumes/min., or times 1440 min., 13,824,000 in a day).  Compare that to your 15-per-minute respiration (21,600 breaths for 24 hours), and it would seem to suggest that driving your car (at an exhalation rate that is 640 times as frequent for any time span) for 33.75 seconds is equivalent to breathing for 24 hours assuming both have the same CO2 output. However since all the numbers I've seen for automotive exhaust suggest a much higher number than human exhalation, the ratio is likely to be even more slanted."    Probably by another factor of ten.  Time to thaw some tundra for methane, input some oceanic thermohaline recycling and uncharted sub- sea volcanic venting, rising solar cycle infrared radiation, and don't leave out the lunar saros for heating from tidal stress... Looks like all the ice will be gone in a century.  Tuvalu is doomed, except for domain-names ending in .tv.  ;-)  Oh, wait, did we figure in, that kudzu will displace all terrestrial plants, and hydrilla all aquatic ones, and what will their proportion of conversion to oxygen be?  But as the rest of the world converts from using bicycles to driving fossil-fuel cars, what is the heat equivalent of paving over the entire land mass with black asphalt to have an infinite parking lot on or between freeways?  Em portugu?s, num da pra da um jeitinho!

cbossieux
cbossieux

As a Retired D/C engineer I agree the numbers need further checking.

DNSB
DNSB

No circular arguments there. Simply math -- which I notice you don't attempt to debunk. As for your claim that you had 262 ppm of CO2 on an emissions test, that is either an error on your part, possibly reading the hydrocarbon (HC) emissions for CO2 emissions or a deliberate falsehood on your part. Given your general debating style, I'm leaning towards the never blame on malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity explanation. Perhaps you would care to explain how your car manages to emit less carbon dioxide than the normal amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is approximately 0.033% (or 330 ppm). And yes, an internal combustion engine running far from a stoich mix can emit more CO than CO2. I also gave some conditions where this might happen. Cold and an very rich mixture. Around here, the instructions are to ensure your vehicle is warmed up before testing so it seems unlikely that a vehicle would meet those conditions. As Thomas Paine wrote, "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

Benevolence
Benevolence

"Ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever." - that's beautiful... I am going to steal that.

Benevolence
Benevolence

I hope you are trying to be a trouble maker, and not just being naive. For the record, I agree with George, but not your assertions here. edit: yeah... just read a few more of your posts. ;) ya cheeky bastard. I see that you actually do agree that efficiency is a good thing.

Benevolence
Benevolence

Who cares!!! The point is, IT DOESN'T MATTER. The cleaner our planet, the healthier WE are. It really makes no difference whether we create the toxins or something else does... our planet and our quality of life go hand in hand.

inertman
inertman

i wasn't going to respond again, but you dangled a freebee out there so i changed my mind. first, since not you, nor anyone else here, has rebutted, refuted or offered any debate to my actual argument, it seems you concede, that it is rediculous to point at one culprit of many and assign all the blame of which there is plenty to go around. so i win this debate outright. too bad for you. second, you offered proof for my conjecture in this response. hopefully, unwittingly, as i would hate to think you're such an elitist to make the assumption that no body here can do math. additionally, you used another falacy of logic called 'circle reasoning', in which you basically said 'i am wrong and therfore i am wrong'(actually you said 'assuming they are equal' when i said they are not'). i accept all of your assertions on face value for the purposes of this response, except i don't know what kind of little girls or chipmunks breathe at 30 breaths per minute. the problem comes when you (or your students) don't complete the calcultaion(again, because of your assumption that is called circle reasoning). you stop with the assertion that 10 min. of driving the stated car equals 24 hours of breathing from the little girl. this is fine and i accept it. the problem comes when you apply the percentages of co2 to the exhaust, and i use the word exhaust for both as i maintain that anything that comes out of the mouth of a human is poison gas. i offered the value of 2% co2 for humans, a figure i think is too low, more likely 5% - 7%, maybe as high as 10%, still satisfactory to allow for the cpr we agreed on. but i'm still gonna use the 2% figure. then the .000262% in a car representing 262 parts per million that i asserted is the value on my emissions report done at a speed of ~55mph. to make it simple, come up w/ a unit of measure that would make the equal value of breath to car exhaust come out to 1 million units(based on the concept you fronted that the volumes are equal, even thought you tried to say the the co2 was equal as well). then apply the 262ppm of the car and the 2% of human breath and try to tell which is greater. i'll wait here. actually no i won't. to be more specific, take the 24 hours you posited and translate into seconds and the same w/ the 10 min.s for the car (as the final number is going to be very small for the car). then apply the 2% to the 24hr and the .000262% to the 10 min figure. 24x60x60x.02=1728 seconds of actually exhaling co2 for a human. 10x60x.000262=0.1572 seconds of exhausting co2 for a car. which one is more, the car or the little girl? you failed in "assuming they both have the same co2 output", because all you did was take volume into account in your supposition. i did it differently as i would use a rpm that would either be idling or a factor of that, say times 4, as this represents a real speed that someone might be driving if they were to drive non-stop for 24 hours. to me this is still wrong, but you(or your students doing you math) failed again, by doing the same thing that the treehuggers do, which is to mis-state and give incomplete information. i did the same thing is some instances and even pointed some of them out, but you still don't understand the world of debate, logic and semantics. tto bad for you, sorry. as for the 'possible to have more co than co2', why don't you try a sniffer on an engine that doesn't have a catlytic converter on it, say a lawnmower or a '68 suburban, and get back to me. actually, nevermind, you lose and i'm done w/ you. however, there is still you silly little coment re. greenland. and if you peruse this thread further, you wiill find another link to a pdf which talks about it, specifically that it was warmer then. so, if it was warmer then, we don't actually have global warming now. and then, therefore, cars cannot be resposible for global warming that is non-existant. once again, you lose, and i am done w/ you! enjoy argueing w/ other limited inteligences in canada.

DNSB
DNSB

You stated the majority of the output was CO. My response was the majority of the carbon oxide output was CO2. The catalytic converter reduces the CO, HC and nitrogen oxide percentages to lower levels than can be achieved in the combustion chamber -- an explosion is a VERY poor way to get complete combustion. As for the human versus car CO2 output. lung output averages about .5 litres per breath. Let's say your car runs at an average 2400 RPM and has a 2 litre engine with 4 cylinders (.5 litres per cylinder) while you breath at an average rate of 30 breaths per minute. So in a 4 stroke engine, you'd be firing 4800 times per minute (every second cycle * 4 cylinders * 2400). Compare that to your 30 per minute respiration and it would seem to suggest that driving your car for 10 minutes is equivalent to breathing for 24 hours assuming both have the same CO2 output. However since all the numbers I've seen for automotive exhaust suggest a much higher number than human exhalation, the ratio is likely to be even more slanted. I'm still not sure where that 262 parts per million CO2 comes from. Going from memory here so feel free to correct any errors of fact, disregarding temperature effects on gas density but I seem to remember that the sweet spot for an internal combustion engine is around 14.7 air/fuel however lean burn engines run at a lower ratio of 12-13 to reduce pinging or premature detonation and improve fuel economy so I'm going to use 12.5 as the ratio. Again assuming, the fuel mix is pure octane (C8H18) which weighs about .7kg per litre and that that we are consuming 8 litres per 100 kilometres, we're using 5.6kg of gasoline which is approximately 4.7kg of carbon being emitted using a 96/18 carbon/hydrogen mass ratio or around ~17.2kg (4.7kg of carbon, 12.5kg of oxygen)per 100km. Using your 262 parts/million CO2, we need around 600,000kg of air to dilute this down to 262 ppm. Hmm... air is around 1.29 kg per cubic metre (room temp, sea level, etc.) so around 465,000 cubic metres. Using 14.5% CO2 in the exhaust as a decent number (numbers from manufacturer's site for my car gives 14.5% CO2 and

inertman
inertman

the point i was making, as was george, was that pointing at one culprit of many and say"look, it's their fault" is pure lunacy. yet you decide, as have several others here, to try to talk about a specific agument rather than the topic. this is a falacy of logic called 'selective reasoning'. what's unfortunate about this is that usually when an elitist uses it, he has a tendancy to fall off his high horse when he stick his pompus foot in his conceited mouth. you managed to also get the horses hoof in there too. if an engine exhausts only co2, then why does it need a catalitic converter to change co2 into co2? i specifically said internal combustion engines to allow for all, not just autos, then you said the same thing but then only aplied your argument to autos. i am pretty sure that all my gas engine moterized garden equipment, weed wacker, chainsaw, wood chipper, leaf blower, lawn mower, don't have catalitic converters on them. and ofcourse, internal combustion engines are also found on other things like log splitters, mini bikes, een planes and trains. i know not all engines utilize converters and i know that internal combustion engines exhaust primarily co, not co2. i at least said that anyone who has had a small engines shop calss, could read an encyclopedia or surf the net could verify this. you decided to get elitist and say anyone with a modicum of knowledge about cars. i disagree. i was working in a service station not long after the inception of the converter, and everyone said' what is it and why do i need it?", now most say it is some sort of emissions device and that's about it. and many places don't have emissions controls, i have lived in 2 in the U.S., a person could have an older car w/o one, or take it out of a newer one. this could happen even in a place that has emissions testing, you would merely have to install it once every 2 years for you test. next, i'm glad to see you agree w/ me when i said i dis-agree w/ the $20 month fact, w/ the conversion from canadian to us, it looks like about $5. as for your lungs argument. lets suppose that of the %17 o2 in the air, you lungs only convert 2, that's 2% of the whole, and i say that my lungs are bigger than the 4 cyls of my car. but just for argument, lets say it's the same. using the 262 parts per million i mentioned, that car would have to idle for 60 seconds to equal one breath taking less than 5 seconds(i did the math for you since you seem to be to elite, 'it's for students' you said). this is what i meant that humans, by their mere existance are more effectual than a car. an extreme and biased point, but maybe you can understand that there are more contibutors than a car, just like the computer argument which is actually the topic of this thread. last, the climate in greenland. you may have noticed elsewhere in this thread the point that the polar ice caps are melting on mars too. apoint i was going to make as well, but thought it trite more than once. if you think that manmade climate change is the only cause for our climate change, we must be doing one hell of a job to be affecting mars, wouldn't you say? since arguing over the internet is pointless, i have tried to give some facts and not just blather. one of the sources i used, the worldbook encylopedia 1968, vol 3 out of 20, C-Ch, page 168, first column: "carbon monoxide results when feuls containing carbon such as coal or oil burn in stovesor furnaces that do not contain enough oxygen. automobiles also produce deadly amounts of carbon monoxide." the reason is a carbourator (or fuel injection system) regulates the o2 for optimum burn. also on the same page same column is the end of carbon dioxide, w/ no mention of cars but explains the large amount of oxygen in the burning. also described the the decaying of plants and dead animals. oddly enough this is where we get some of our methane, one of the real 'greenhouse' gases. well, since you seem to just be argueing, and i'm trying to illuminate, i think i'm done w/ you. i'll post no more responses to you and let you have the last word. good luck w/ that.

DNSB
DNSB

The carbon oxide output of a correctly setup internal combustion engine is CO2 not CO. If nothing else as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of automobiles realizes, automobiles manufactured from ~1975 on were equipped with a catalytic converter. The standard catalytic converter is intended to convert CO and hydrocarbons into CO2 and H2O (two way converters). Add a couple of other components and start breaking down the nitrogen oxides for a three way converter. And yes, I did check my emissions report. Around here, they give the CO2 component only during the high speed test. CO, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are given for idle,low and high speed though converting grams per kilometer to any other format is left as an exercise for the student. As for the cost of running a computer for one month? Hooking a watt meter to one of the computers at home shows that the computer/monitor and accessories are consuming about 130 watts. Assuming a 30 day month and $67.10 Cdn for 1000 KWH/month, the cost of running this setup for one month is ~$6.28. I didn't check the power factor of this setup which might cause a major change in these numbers. The computer measured is an older system i.e. less power hungry, with Netware 6.5 installed. As for your lungs output even if you have been holding your breath for a long period, the actual percentage of oxygen in the exhaled gas is nowheres near 0%. Otherwise why perform CPR? Breathing a mixture with the gas composition you suggest would simply ensure the poor sod remained dead. As for mankind's effect on the climate, check climate when the Vikings had settlements in Greenland compared to the current climate.

inertman
inertman

i, at least hear and get your point and thats why i say, 'right back atcha'. since you seemed to miss my point entirely, which is similar to some of georges responses, that you all miss the point, pointing at ms is a mistake. yes, they could make some changes, but most of what needs to happen has more to do w/ every other facet of the use/mis-use of computers. though i dis-agree w/ the ~$20 per mo per computer, my current elec. bill is $92, i have a min of 2 pcs running 24/7 and 2 more runing a fair amount of the time. at $20 per, that means that a 3000 ft2 house only requires $12 in electricity. this bill is ~1142kwh, a bill for the same time 5 years ago when only one pc was being used in this same house ~ 1 day a week for no more thatn 5 hours was 702kwh. another point that was missed, though i'm not surprised, is that i used the same tactics that people like treehugger use, which is to give the info i want you to have (and maybe even stretch a point or mis-represent it, or even a typo: see my corrections in the original post) but that talking about greenhouse gases, and even the fact that we breathe 24/7, is worse than any car being used for that occasional trip 3 blocks to the corner convenience store for chips ahoy and a 6 pack because 2/3 of americans are too obese to walk that far. additionally, i was looking at my emision test and you weren't (the number IS 262 bbut yes, per million), so for you to question something you don't see, is one thing, but to suggest i am ignorant because you dis-agree, well, once again, right back atcha. and yes, i mis-represented the o2 to co2 of the human lungs, but consider this. an average human can be closed in a 60ft3 space and conert the breathable air to poison in 24 hours and die. i can drive my car for 24 hours and still not produce that much co2, as my lungs are larger than a 4cyl car and their purpose is exchanging o2 for co2 and a car exchanges gas an o2 for c0 and many other gases that are NOT greenhouse gases. so, once again, i get to the point of, why do all of you people have to point at something you dis-agree w/ and say "ignorant" when you're not even adressing the point when you respond? i merely gave an example of how treehugger lies and that george is right. you people need to try and think and quit w/ the knee jerk thing.

bop
bop

I need to correct you here. What comes out of our lungs, hopefully, is not much different from what goes in - except from the difference that comes from the oxygen we consume. Hopefully close to 100% of the nitrogen comes out again (thats 80% of the total volume), if not that might explain some of the calculations done here. If you need that explained - ask a diver.

DNSB
DNSB

Perhaps inertman, you would have done better to recall the old saying about it being better to be silent and throught a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt 262 parts CO2 per billion? Rather interesting since I've never seen any emissions test that gave CO2 levels that were that low (80,000 parts per million was close to the average level)-- that's carbon DIoxide for the putzes out there). What was quoted looks more like the CO level (carbon MONoxide). While CO2 is a normal part of human exhalation though 100% is going a bit far -- I'm kinda curious as to what inertman thinks happens to the 78% nitrogen and ~1 percent of other gases that you inhaled -- CO is not since it combines with hemoglobin blocking it's ability to carry oxygen. Around my workplace, a level over 30 parts per million is considered unacceptable for prolonged exposure. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever.

DNSB
DNSB

262 parts CO2 (carbon DIoxide) per billion? That figure needs some checking.

bop
bop

Given I need the same resolution I would save 35% the power budget going til LCD from my CRT. Beware the back-light - they are geting better but everything 2 years or older :-(. Even the standby pwr wount beat your quality CRT. And inkjets in office environment is a joke. 25 of the small inkjets use the same power pr. day as the big office laser and they are not doing 1/100 the work. Afterhours/night standby is less than that of the small inkjets.

mjrunion
mjrunion

We are in the process of deploying he new GX 745 as our standard user system and I have noted that SpeedStep is available on these desktops. This was a laptop technology that allows for the throttling of the processor based on needs of applicatins. I do not as of yet have any hard figures on any power savings.

georgeou
georgeou

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/Ou/?p=140 So you see, Desktop Linux has actually had more requirements than Windows XP for some time. Vista is just catching up in to modern times since XP is 5+ years old. Again, you totally MISSED the point of the article. I don't know why you're more eager to blast Microsoft than actually try and hear what I'm saying. I gave actual proposals of how to reduce power requirements even below an 800 MHz computer but you're stuck on hating Microsoft. You're so blind by it that you don't even see me arguing FOR more energy efficiency.

pkrdk
pkrdk

George, isn't it a OS issue that you now need a 3GHz PC with at least 512MB menory to run Windows and the Office package? This costs electricity. Wouldn't it be much smarter if the OS and the apps were lean instead of bulging with every new release, forcing people to buy new, faster, large PC every time ? Throwing fast HW at slow SW, or curing bad programs with good HW. Your thinking is like that of the US auto-industry in the early 1970's, when bigger was better. A politically based petrol crisis put an end to that overnight.

georgeou
georgeou

I have drummed on the EE issue for a long time and I've been trying to get people to stop buying these massive 500 watt power supplies in favor of small efficient ones. I use a 330 watt active PFC PS. Also, ASUS P5B has this AI NAP mode that sinks your system in to a low-speed low-volt state that saves power. It lets you download things. I haven't had a chance to measure the effects, but it is a step in the right direction. It does require you to manually trigger it and get out of it so usability is questionable. The ASUS has a horrible user interface though in the BIOS. Can't even find the voltage and FSB tweaks in the BIOS so far on my friend's machine.

DocFlGood
DocFlGood

George....great answer ..agree with you 100% that hardware is the problem.....maybe within a year or two we will see some of the notebook features on desktops......the treehuggers are out of line the last Intel conference i was at sort of dribbled out that energy saving features would be available possibly in the 3rd quarter of 2007 i understand that Thermaltake is coming out with some energy saving power supplies

georgeou
georgeou

The point was that it's a HARDWARE issue since most desktop PCs don't even have that throttling feature. It's not an OS issue. Furthermore, did you read what I was proposing the hardware vendors should do? I said that Hardware vendors need to work HARD to make PCs that can throttle back to 10-20 watt modes WHICH SAVE 100-200 watts per PC! Does that sound like I'm anti energy consumption? Treehugger and yourself totally missed the point. Treehugger was saying that it's Microsoft's fault for putting a PC in to high performance mode. I simply stated that it makes ZERO or little difference. What we need is hardware that can make a BIG difference. PCs essentially run at full clock speed and full power 100% of the time. I am suggesting that PCs drop their speed and voltage to save power.

Long shadoW
Long shadoW

"the difference between 180 watts versus 155 watts in idle, which really doesn't make that much difference." woa guys - at 1 million pc's thats 25 MegaWatts. How many ps's in North Am ? And lots of corperate ps's are on 24/7 Treehuggy's figures may be off but when we all pitch in - we do make a difference .